Archive of old topics pre-October 2007. PM a mod to get one reopened
  •  
  •  
  •  
By Beast of Bolsover
Membership Days Membership Days
#25486
From a recent article (a stinking BBC pinko leftist article) on the scouts ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6918066.stm )
]WATER SENSE

Plunge in boldly and look to the object you are trying to attain and don't bother about your own safety.

Baden-Powell was outraged by an episode in which a woman drowned in a pond at Hampstead while a crowd looked on. But his advice on emergency situations, and particularly the rescuing of the drowning, seem at odds with today's culture.

For the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (Rospa), the emphasis is on avoiding jumping in and only even wading as a last resort.

ROSPA 2007: "You should do everything possible to avoid having to enter the water because experience shows that often the would-be rescuer becomes a casualty. If you have to make a rescue attempt, think of your own safety first and never put yourself in danger. If the rescue is too dangerous, wait until the emergency services arrive. Remember this order: shout, reach, throw, wade."

After shouting for help and sending someone to dial 999, throwing a lifebelt or reaching with a stick or branch is the next step.
By Winston O'Hoodie
Membership Days Membership Days
#25488
I know that you are warned never to 'plunge in' like that - but I think that probably most of us here, if faced by the kind of situation described in the article would have given it a go. I think I'm with the Mail's take on this particular incident (IF of course it is being described correctly).
By JuanTwoThree
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#25489
BoB: You may be right but my first reaction was very Mailean.

And perhaps boy cops riding their bikes around areas where there are pools should have been trained to rescue people from pools. They could then have got the two 60 year old men out of the water and had a go themselves. After all they were the response to the 999 call.

Anyway.
By horacegoesskiing
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#25490
Yes, you do think initially that these two PCSOs may be gutless, however I don't like the initial tone of the article which takes the form of another public servant bashing exercise. If these two PCSOs didn't feel up to getting into the water because they felt it could endanger themselves, it's their call. One of the first things I was told when I signed up to a first aid course last year was, don't put yourself in unnecessary danger.
By Beast of Bolsover
Membership Days Membership Days
#25491
JuanTwoThree wrote:BoB: You may be right but my first reaction was very Mailean.

And perhaps boy cops riding their bikes around areas where there are pools should have been trained to rescue people from pools. They could then have got the two 60 year old men out of the water and had a go themselves. After all they were the response to the 999 call.

Anyway.
To be honest my reaction was the same as yours at first . But I can't help but think that the Rospa advice is sound.There is a thin line between bravery/gallantry and stupidity.
 
By Samanfur
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#25495
horacegoesskiing wrote:Yes, you do think initially that these two PCSOs may be gutless, however I don't like the initial tone of the article which takes the form of another public servant bashing exercise. If these two PCSOs didn't feel up to getting into the water because they felt it could endanger themselves, it's their call. One of the first things I was told when I signed up to a first aid course last year was, don't put yourself in unnecessary danger.
As a first aider of twenty years' standing: that advice has never changed. The last thing you do is give the ambulance service extra casualties to deal with.

I agree with the DM's reaction in principle. But I'd call into question why two PCSOs who both weren't experienced - let alone trained for that sort of incident - were being expected to deal with it.

I don't blame the PCSOs for using their own judgement, but somewhere is at least one manager who didn't do a very good job of managing the incident. They shouldn't have been in that situation in the first place.

But, on the other side of the coin, neither should the children. There're deaths in these sorts of ponds every year.
By bairy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#25498
It is a judgement call and sometimes you have to put emotion aside and realise that. As has been said in this thread, there is a risk that you'll create more casualties and there's no gaurentee you'll save the person in trouble anyway.
Your average joe might've jumped in, maybe even one of us would have but in the end they were there and they had to decide at that point.
Another thing to remember is though the 10 year old did go for it, kids have less sense of danger than adults.


As for the Mail's reporting.. I think it's disgusting. I don't think they give a rats ass about the boy who drowned, I think it's just another dig at the PSCOs. I say that because they use the word "brave", like duh, which I think is a way of saying "the PSCOs were cowardly".
I would be interested to know who else was there, who else didn't jump in while "brave" Jordan did. See it's very easy to isolate the chaps in a uniform but what about everyone else. If such an incident isn't in the PSCOs training, then that's how it is. If they were trained Mail readers would moan about the cost anyway.

If it happened as the Mail says it happened, then whilst I think it's a tragic case, I also think the PSCOs are as free to make a judgement call as everyone else is - there should not be a onus on them to possibly risk their lives simply because of who they are as they are not trained to do so. However I also believe since they are taxpayer funded, the parents should be allowed to question their actions.
By Zinoviev's Ghost
Membership Days Membership Days
#25506
It would have been stupid for two people who can't swim very well or at all to endanger themselves, but the Mail does have a point about PCSOs.

The regular police think they are neither use nor ornament. In fact, one police officer once told me that if I was ever in a situation where I needed to escape from a pairing of 1x PC and 1x PCSO (still don't know what she thought I would be in such a situation, but never mind), to knock out the copper because the PCSO will never do anything that could possibly endanger themselves.
By Beast of Bolsover
Membership Days Membership Days
#25509
Zinoviev's Ghost wrote:It would have been stupid for two people who can't swim very well or at all to endanger themselves, but the Mail does have a point about PCSOs.
The point being that the PCSO's are not trained life guards , nor part of the emergency services.PCSO's are " not replacement police officers but are there to address some of the tasks that do not require the experience or powers held by police officers, which often take officers away from more appropriate duties."
cited from http://www.policecommunitysupportoffice ... lcome.html

Until the Mail gets a Bobby on the beat in each neighbourhood they will not be happy. Criminals would also love this as police resources would not allow pursuit cars , helicopters etc etc etc. The whole drowning thing is nasty yes , but not an indictment against the law and order system , and whilst my first reaction would have been save the child , my second split second reaction was I am not going to commit suicide and my third reaction would be I ain't going to use this to paint a 1950's Dixon of Dock Green crock of shit.
Momentum

Nobs. https://twitter.com/iainjwatson/status/1174[…]

Janet Street-Porter

This is just really....weird. She's taken one lit[…]

The Sun

Funny how forecasts & reports from the Irish C[…]

Labour, Generally.

So Jeremy is pushing for a 'sensible' brexit. As o[…]